What's new

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

FuturePAF

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 17, 2014
5,466
20
6,562
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Without knowing the investment I don’t think that can be determined yet. More importantly, a total of 14 active C-130s means that they will have to be pulled from airlift duties to undertake these tasks and makes them an even more HVAA target for Indians.

On the other hand, a pallet onboard with paratroops would mean they can soften their own landing zone without needing CAS assets.
However, considering all the other places investment is lacking along with knowledge base I would never put this high on the priority list unless more C-130s were available.

Pakistanis tend to either look at easy tasks where they lose motivation due to being bored&lazy, or they pick bigger projects beyond their scope(AZM) where the challenge overwhelms them and they give up. It has to be the sweet spot of edge of capability so it’s right near learning skill sets.

Block-III JF is exactly that. Then it’s onto tech that goes into AZM but not AZM.
That’s why they should work on Drones. Secure datalinks, VLO shaping, intakes, small turbojet and turbofan engines. There is a lot that can be done with drones that can help domestic industry climb its way up the value added chain.
And what if JF17 is attacked first?
Now it has to shake off the incoming missile with extra mass which would the performance as you can imagine. Your aircraft would be toast.
The JF-17 should use lightweight decoy drones when outnumbered to even the odds. Something like a domestically produced Mald-J equivalent would be great for the PAF. If each four ship formation carried 4 decoys amongst themselves, they could employ more aggressive tactics to lure adversaries into exposing themselves in such a way the JF-17s could achieve tactical advantages, enough for a higher probability kill shot.

perhaps a development of these Chinese target drones, especially if the weight can be kept to that of the MALD-J, a JF-17 could carry up to 4 across those twin racks. These drones look to have the potential to be manuerable enough to convincingly simulate a fighter, with the right Engine and AI. It is meant to be sacrificed to protect the manned fighter if necessary


 
Last edited:

araz

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Jun 14, 2006
8,546
72
14,252
Existing/New Customers
  • Pakistan Airforce (On Going Customer)
  • Myanmar (Initial Order)
  • Nigeria (Initial Order)
  • Nigeria (Follow Up Order)
  • Argentina (Interest)
  • Iraqi (Interest)
  • Azerbaijan (Interest)
  • Indonesia (Interest)
  • Malaysia (Interest)
  • Zambia (Interest)
I know that Qatar AF has taken a lot of inrerest and visited PAC repeatedly. I understand there is a lot between interest and signed contracts or even expression of interest but wanted your thoughts on Qatari interest in JFT.
A
 

khanasifm

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 16, 2008
6,942
6
5,500

The only thing share by mbda about meteor eta he is more than nauticle miles or 100 km and 60km no escape zone

Folks thout aim120 ranges but usaf only stayed more than 30 nm safe to say about same as 70/75km against fighter, these 100 plus range for older types are pretty much just internet tigers ranges and no one else , real ranges subject to opponent speeds and altitudes receding vs approaching etc factors but almost 150 km ago at all target is impressive and was predicated more a than double of sd-10 Or Aim120
 

CriticalThought

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 10, 2016
6,973
15
7,302
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
Without knowing the investment I don’t think that can be determined yet. More importantly, a total of 14 active C-130s means that they will have to be pulled from airlift duties to undertake these tasks and makes them an even more HVAA target for Indians.

On the other hand, a pallet onboard with paratroops would mean they can soften their own landing zone without needing CAS assets.
However, considering all the other places investment is lacking along with knowledge base I would never put this high on the priority list unless more C-130s were available.

Pakistanis tend to either look at easy tasks where they lose motivation due to being bored&lazy, or they pick bigger projects beyond their scope(AZM) where the challenge overwhelms them and they give up. It has to be the sweet spot of edge of capability so it’s right near learning skill sets.

Block-III JF is exactly that. Then it’s onto tech that goes into AZM but not AZM.
This is how I analyze the situation. There is definitely a need for supersonic and hypersonic missiles against the threat of S400. We can expect them to be in the 2000+ Kg range. To try and get a 9000 Kg fighter to carry this into battle is irrational. I disagree that Block 3 is the exact fighter for that. Maybe F-16, but then it will have to be pulled away from duties as well.

Which brings us to J-10. And between a squadron of J-10s and a squadron of multi-purpose transports, I will choose multi-purpose transports every single time. Transports are a key element of fifth and sixth gen warfare, and if our doctrine is not being updated to take advantage of the capabilities they offer, that shows complacency.

Yes, they become HVTs, but fifth and sixth gen tactics have solutions for dealing with incoming missiles. They range from jamming to shooting down the incoming missiles to decoys and ghost echos. We are already planning to field 9 different AEWACS, amongst them the monster ZDKs. What's the plan to safeguard these HVTs? The same plan can work for transports as well.
 

SQ8

ADVISORS
Mar 28, 2009
35,800
418
76,169
Country
United States
Location
United States
This is how I analyze the situation. There is definitely a need for supersonic and hypersonic missiles against the threat of S400. We can expect them to be in the 2000+ Kg range. To try and get a 9000 Kg fighter to carry this into battle is irrational. I disagree that Block 3 is the exact fighter for that. Maybe F-16, but then it will have to be pulled away from duties as well.

Which brings us to J-10. And between a squadron of J-10s and a squadron of multi-purpose transports, I will choose multi-purpose transports every single time. Transports are a key element of fifth and sixth gen warfare, and if our doctrine is not being updated to take advantage of the capabilities they offer, that shows complacency.

Yes, they become HVTs, but fifth and sixth gen tactics have solutions for dealing with incoming missiles. They range from jamming to shooting down the incoming missiles to decoys and ghost echos. We are already planning to field 9 different AEWACS, amongst them the monster ZDKs. What's the plan to safeguard these HVTs? The same plan can work for transports as well.
I don’t think I implied using the block-3 - however, what is missing from your proposal is the investment. What is expected to be put into the R&D of this system?
What is expected as the unit cost?
You’re providing the benefits but not the opportunity costs for this.
Either way, this could be looked at further in the transport thread.
 

Chak Bamu

RETIRED MOD
Jan 3, 2013
4,648
68
7,906
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Jf-17 good bird. But we needed a medium weight multirole fighter which would have greatly increased the survivability of air assets and ground.

But what can we do missed opportunities never arise again.

Also, am not very well-read on the Air domain. I like to stick to the sentry posts and naval planks. So go easy on me.
This is the reason for interest in J-10CE.

One thing most ppl miss while analyzing JF-17 is the very quick turn-around time it has. This means a high sortie rate. This is why time on station is not a major priority. This is also why medium weight fighters with longer loiter time & range are needed. JF-17 could do quick strikes while medium weight air-superiority assets provide cover. The obvious problem then is that JF-17 does not carry much weight in armaments, so it won't sting as hard. But it can saturate a battle-field with its presence merely due to its much higher sortie rate. Based purely on sortie rate, JF-17 can matter more than any one aircraft type that enemy can field.
This is how I analyze the situation. There is definitely a need for supersonic and hypersonic missiles against the threat of S400. We can expect them to be in the 2000+ Kg range. To try and get a 9000 Kg fighter to carry this into battle is irrational. I disagree that Block 3 is the exact fighter for that. Maybe F-16, but then it will have to be pulled away from duties as well.

Which brings us to J-10. And between a squadron of J-10s and a squadron of multi-purpose transports, I will choose multi-purpose transports every single time. Transports are a key element of fifth and sixth gen warfare, and if our doctrine is not being updated to take advantage of the capabilities they offer, that shows complacency.

Yes, they become HVTs, but fifth and sixth gen tactics have solutions for dealing with incoming missiles. They range from jamming to shooting down the incoming missiles to decoys and ghost echos. We are already planning to field 9 different AEWACS, amongst them the monster ZDKs. What's the plan to safeguard these HVTs? The same plan can work for transports as well.
Great post. However, I think enemy won't be playing on our terms. The one thing that really bothers me is a massive first-wave saturation attack. That is why number of combat jets matter a great deal.

I think a high priority should be accorded to GDP & Tax growth, so that we may be able to afford more / better assets in the future.
 
Last edited:

CriticalThought

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 10, 2016
6,973
15
7,302
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
Great post. However, I think enemy won't be playing on our terms. The one thing that really bothers me is a massive first-wave saturation attack. That is why number of combat jets matter a great deal.

I think a high priority should be accorded to GDP & Tax growth, so that we may be able to afford more / better assets in the future.
Thank you. If the surprise saturation attack is successful, we are already in trouble. Because that means a lot of our fighters will be obliterated on the ground. What remain will face a massive Indian assault. Given Pakistan's geography, the number of fighters to safeguard against this situation would be absolutely massive. Which is why we wield that theoretical nuclear stick.

There is no disagreement on the subject of human development and economic improvement. But even after that, I would still prefer multi-purpose transports over J-10s.
 

Chak Bamu

RETIRED MOD
Jan 3, 2013
4,648
68
7,906
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Thank you. If the surprise saturation attack is successful, we are already in trouble. Because that means a lot of our fighters will be obliterated on the ground. What remain will face a massive Indian assault. Given Pakistan's geography, the number of fighters to safeguard against this situation would be absolutely massive. Which is why we wield that theoretical nuclear stick.

There is no disagreement on the subject of human development and economic improvement. But even after that, I would still prefer multi-purpose transports over J-10s.
Being able to put up assets in the sky can blunt a massive attack. They lob SOWs, so do we; they fire BVR missiles, so do we; they come in, we meet them head-on. The next iteration would be on more favorable terms because I think our one-engine birds can be turned around much faster than their's. That is why numbers matter in my view, & that is why we have JF-17 as it is. Transport planes are certainly important, but if we can not blunt a massive attack then those transport planes would hardly matter.

But then, I am no expert & I yield to better informed & analytical people here. Please correct me if I am wrong.
 

CriticalThought

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 10, 2016
6,973
15
7,302
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
Being able to put up assets in the sky can blunt a massive attack. They lob SOWs, so do we; they fire BVR missiles, so do we; they come in, we meet them head-on. The next iteration would be on more favorable terms because I think our one-engine birds can be turned around much faster than their's. That is why numbers matter in my view, & that is why we have JF-17 as it is. Transport planes are certainly important, but if we can not blunt a massive attack then those transport planes would hardly matter.

But then, I am no expert & I yield to better informed & analytical people here. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Your scenario is valid, but it is not taking into account Indian S-400/S-500. Now you have an intact IAF turning up in massive numbers hurling BVRs, while LRSAMs have been moved closer to the border. IAF can stay behind the SAMs and harass you. You need supersonic and hypersonic missiles to quickly strike them out. Fighter jets will not give you a fast turnaround when loaded with 2000+ kg missiles.

And again, all of this presumes there are enough fighters, runways, and infrastructure left after the first saturation attack. The IAF didn't just take out fighters on the ground, it destroyed your runways, ammo dumps, forward radars, command and control systems. You will quickly find out that you are in no shape to fight. It would be disingenuous for IAF to do anything less than this. Why would it initiate hostilities, only to leave enough of PAF to fight back?
 

SQ8

ADVISORS
Mar 28, 2009
35,800
418
76,169
Country
United States
Location
United States
Your scenario is valid, but it is not taking into account Indian S-400/S-500. Now you have an intact IAF turning up in massive numbers hurling BVRs, while LRSAMs have been moved closer to the border. IAF can stay behind the SAMs and harass you. You need supersonic and hypersonic missiles to quickly strike them out. Fighter jets will not give you a fast turnaround when loaded with 2000+ kg missiles.

And again, all of this presumes there are enough fighters, runways, and infrastructure left after the first saturation attack. The IAF didn't just take out fighters on the ground, it destroyed your runways, ammo dumps, forward radars, command and control systems. You will quickly find out that you are in no shape to fight. It would be disingenuous for IAF to do anything less than this. Why would it initiate hostilities, only to leave enough of PAF to fight back?
Even a HVAA has to fly out.

But the scenario you present means the trigger for the Pakistani samson option has been reached quite a bit already. If the iAF has managed to already destroy major runways, ammo dumps , radars and C4I centers then the strategic systems have already left their bunkers and at this point panic phones are ringing from foriegn leaders to
Both capitals while the key leadership on both sides is getting ready to make peace with their makers.

Trust me, things aren’t going that horribly for us to think of a HVAA based CM system and if they are then the airlifters are likely toast as well.
 

CriticalThought

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 10, 2016
6,973
15
7,302
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
Even a HVAA has to fly out.

But the scenario you present means the trigger for the Pakistani samson option has been reached quite a bit already. If the iAF has managed to already destroy major runways, ammo dumps , radars and C4I centers then the strategic systems have already left their bunkers and at this point panic phones are ringing from foriegn leaders to
Both capitals while the key leadership on both sides is getting ready to make peace with their makers.

Trust me, things aren’t going that horribly for us to think of a HVAA based CM system and if they are then the airlifters are likely toast as well.
I am in complete agreement here. It wasn't my scenario, I was just helping Chak Bamu to think through what he was proposing.

But I maintain that Indian LRSAMs necessitate HVAA based missiles, cruise or otherwise. In any case, it is the future of aerial warfare. America recently tested such a system. When China and Russia follow suit, it will become mainstream. At some point, India might field something like this against us.
 

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
5,964
74
23,422
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Model of JF-17 Thunder fighter jet displayed with Ramjet powered Supersonic Missiles at Zhuhai 2021 air show

View attachment 779763
IMO the missile mock-ups seem more like the MBDA ASMPA than the HD-1A.

I wonder if there's some at AHQ thought about pairing miniature nuclear warheads to supersonic-cruising missiles (akin to what France is doing with the ASMPA).

Just imaging pairing a twin-engine WS-10/AL-41-powered F-15-sized fighter (AZM ASR) with Ra'ad-2 and ASMPA-type missiles for the strategic role. Yikes.

1632772203336.png
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 1, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom